Catholic Info

Traditional Catholic Faith => General Discussion => Topic started by: SeanJohnson on May 17, 2019, 05:05:01 PM

Title: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 17, 2019, 05:05:01 PM
http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2019/05/acerca-del-supuesto-milagro-eucaristico.html (http://nonpossumus-vcr.blogspot.com/2019/05/acerca-del-supuesto-milagro-eucaristico.html)


On October 12, 2008, in St. Anthony's Church in Sokolka, the 8:30 Mass was celebrated by a young vicar, Filip Zdrodowski. During Communion, one of the priests dropped the Host. The priest didn't even notice. He was told by a woman who was kneeling when she was about to receive the Eucharist.

The priest was paralyzed with fright and thinking that it had got dirty, he put it in the vasculum, a small silver container that contains the water that priests use to wash their fingers after having given Communion.

At the end of the Holy Mass, the sacristan, Mother Julia Dubowska, took the vasculum with the Host and, for greater security, put it in another container that she then locked in the safe where the chalices were kept.

A week later, on Sunday, October 19, at about 8:00 a.m., the nun opened the safe, found the Host practically dissolved but with strange red clots.

She immediately summoned the priests to show what she had discovered. The Host had practically dissolved. Part of the Host was attached to this "strange red clot".

Then the parish priest of Sokolka contacted the Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok. Archbishop Edward Ozorowski together with the Chancellor of the Curia, the priests and the doctors examined the Host and, disconcerted, decided to wait for the events to unfold and to observe.

On October 29, the container containing the Host was taken to the parish chapel and locked in the tabernacle; the following day, at the request of the Archbishop, Father Gniedziejko placed it on a corporal. The corporal was placed in the tabernacle.

With the passage of time the Host "fused" with the corporal and the red "clot" dried up. Only then were two world-renowned scientists and specialists in pathological anatomy from Bialystok Medical University questioned.

The Metropolitan Curia of Bialystok has left this statement:  

"On October 12, 2008, a consecrated Host fell from the priest's hands while giving Communion. He picked it up and placed it in a container filled with water in the tabernacle. After Mass the container containing the Host was placed in a safe in the sacristy.

2. On October 19, 2008, when the safe was opened, a red stain could be clearly seen on the fallen Host, which at first glance gave the impression that it was a blood stain.

3. On October 29, 2008, the container containing the Host was transferred to the tabernacle in the chapel of the parish house. The next day, the Host was taken out of the water in the container and placed on a corporal inside the tabernacle.

4. On January 7, 2009, the sample of the Host was extracted and examined separately by two histopathology professionals from the Medical University of Bialystok. They have left the following common statement: "The sample sent for your examination looks like myocardial tissue. In our opinion, of all the tissues of living organisms, it is the one that most resembles it.

5. The Commission noted that the host under analysis is the same as that which moved from the sacristy to the tabernacle in the chapel of the parish house. The intervention of third parties has not been detected.

The case of Sokolka does not oppose the faith of the Church, but confirms it.

"At first I was convinced it was a clot," said Dr. Sobaniec-Łotowska. However, the reality was much more surprising!

The two scientists from Bialystok, who used the most modern optical microscopes and the transmission electron microscope for their independent research, came to the same conclusion (Dr. Sulkowski did not know that the sample he was analyzing came from a Host): the sample analyzed was neither a clot nor blood... it was a human heart muscle tissue still alive. And, even more incredible, it was a heart muscle with typical indications of the extreme phase before death.

However, some people, who have not only never analyzed the material but have not even seen it with their own eyes, have claimed that the red color of the Host is due to prodigyosin, a red pigment produced by the bacterium Serratia marcescens. "Obviously this is absurd," said the Bialystok specialists, because the material analyzed corresponds to the heart muscle and not to a bacterium.

Some accusations were even more absurd, such as the one promoted by the group of so-called "rationalists" according to whom the tissue analyzed belonged to a murdered man. The doctors reacted with a statement in which they expressed "deep indignation that public opinion was misled by false pseudo-scientific hypotheses about the analyzed phenomenon, especially by people who ignore the details of the analysis, have not had access to the analyzed material or the documentation collected, and often do not even know the applied analysis techniques.

The drafting of the protocol by the two Bialystok scientists took two weeks. When the Bialystok Curia was informed of the incredible results of the analyses, it set in motion a special Ecclesiastical Commission convened by the Archbishop on March 30, 2009. Its task was to examine the miracle from a theological point of view and to listen to all those who had seen the Host or witnessed these extraordinary events. The commission was also in charge of dispelling any doubt of mystification and of verifying that no one had secretly substituted the Host in the Tabernacle. The representatives of the commission questioned all the witnesses and checked the veracity of their testimonies. The work carried out by the Ecclesiastical Commission gave rise to the following statement: "The Host from which the sample was taken for the expertise is the same as that from which the sacristy was transferred to the tabernacle in the chapel of the parish house. The intervention of outsiders has not been noted". This is also categorically excluded by the two scientists from Bialystok. It was not possible that someone had deposited a fragment of the human body in the tabernacle. What led you to think so? The [normal] fragments that formed the Host were intimately interconnected with the fibers of human tissue, penetrating one into the other as if a fragment of "bread" had suddenly become a "body".

It is not possible to manipulate such an event. No one, absolutely no one, would have been able to do it. "Even NASA scientists, who have the most modern analysis techniques, would not have been able to artificially recreate something like this," said Dr. Sobaniec-Łotowska, adding that this fact has been especially important to her.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 17, 2019, 05:09:51 PM
After reading this account, I have very little doubt as to this miracle's authenticity. 
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Your Friend Colin on May 17, 2019, 10:29:20 PM
I take it this took place at a Novus Ordo Mass by a New Rite priest?
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Stubborn on May 18, 2019, 06:17:06 AM
After reading this account, I have very little doubt as to this miracle's authenticity.
Based on the article, I'm not sure who could possibly disagree, yet this miracle only actually serves to prove that either all NO priests / sacraments are not invalid or not always invalid. Which is to say that all the sacrileges that happen as part of the NO business as usual "mass", can be confidently presumed to be valid sacrileges.

Seems the main purpose of this miracle would be that all the conciliarist devotions that will likely take place on account of this miracle to prompt them to abandon the sacrilegious NO altogether and get back to the true faith. What other purpose could there be? - Honest question.        
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 18, 2019, 06:58:47 AM
Funny how there’s been a push to validate the NO “mass” recently. I wonder why?
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Mr G on May 18, 2019, 07:34:56 AM
Funny how there’s been a push to validate the NO “mass” recently. I wonder why?
I have not seen any "push to validate the NO 'mass' recently" as the above story is shown by Non Possumus to demonstrate that God can work a miracle during a (not all) Novous Ordo mass.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 18, 2019, 08:12:52 AM
I have not seen any "push to validate the NO 'mass' recently" as the above story is shown by Non Possumus to demonstrate that God can work a miracle during a (not all) Novous Ordo mass.
God proves the trueness of His Church through miracles and prophecy. If you are correct, then it follows that God not only approves of the NO supposed “mass”, but He also positively wills that you attend it. If the NO “mass” is valid and that miracles happen though it, I would be going down the street to the local “conservative” NO “parish”. Sorry, I’d much rather die.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Ladislaus on May 18, 2019, 08:25:21 AM
After reading this account, I have very little doubt as to this miracle's authenticity.

Pffft.  I don't even trust that the article is true and not completely made up.  Ever hear of "fake news"?  You guys believe everything you read on the Internet and base theological conclusions on it?

Let's assume for a moment that there was indeed heart tissue in the host, eh?  What would prevent the devil from obtaining said tissue and putting it in place, hmmm?

Answer:  Nothing.

That's why the Church uses the context to help determine authenticity ... e.g. the orthodoxy and the personal virtue of those involved with it.

And God perhaps allowed the devil to do this to test the faith of people like yourselves regarding your own convictions regarding the Mass.  Hint:  you're failing.  Quo vadis is absolutely correct.  If this is in fact an authentic miracle performed by God ... then you have no choice but to accept the fact that God approves of the Novus Ordo Mass.  But I know that God does not approve of it.  Therefore, the miracle must be false, likely diabolical in origin.  See how the CHURCH would reason it out?  You START with Catholic principles and THEN make inferences about the miracle.  You do not start with a miracle and draw principles from IT.

Would you guys like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn from me?  I'll post a link on the internet and give you a good price.  
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 18, 2019, 08:44:35 AM
Pffft.  I don't even trust that the article is true and not completely made up.  Ever hear of "fake news"?  You guys believe everything you read on the Internet and base theological conclusions on it?

Let's assume for a moment that there was indeed heart tissue in the host, eh?  What would prevent the devil from obtaining said tissue and putting it in place, hmmm?

Answer:  Nothing.

That's why the Church uses the context to help determine authenticity ... e.g. the orthodoxy and the personal virtue of those involved with it.

And God perhaps allowed the devil to do this to test the faith of people like yourselves regarding your own convictions regarding the Mass.  Hint:  you're failing.  Quo vadis is absolutely correct.  If this is in fact an authentic miracle performed by God ... then you have no choice but to accept the fact that God approves of the Novus Ordo Mass.  But I know that God does not approve of it.  Therefore, the miracle must be false, likely diabolical in origin.  See how the CHURCH would reason it out?  You START with Catholic principles and THEN make inferences about the miracle.  You do not start with a miracle and draw principles from IT.

Would you guys like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn from me?  I'll post a link on the internet and give you a good price.  
Excellent post! I remember when I was in Chicago around 1987 (before my conversion to tradition about 6 years later), I had a Greek Orthodox friend who brought me to an Orthodox church that had a supposed weeping Madonna icon. Even then I was trying to figure out how they faked it. It looked so real! Was it a fake? Was it diabolical? Was it a combination of the two? One thing is for certain, it didn’t come from God, as this supposed “miracle” would have, and I’m sure did in many cases, confirmed those adherents in their false religion.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: SeanJohnson on May 18, 2019, 10:06:36 AM
I find that men are so emotional in response to the issue of Eucharistic miracles transpiring from within conciliar environs, that it is almost pointless to address their sophistries, so this will be my only shotgun response to all the above:

1) No miracles are possible at a NOM: If the Mass is valid (and only sedes allege the per se invalidity of the NOM; certainly no Resistance or SSPX theologians do), then a miracle is already present at every valid NOM, via the miracle of transubstantiation.  Consequently, there are really only two choices available to the sophists: Change their positions to allege the per se invalidity of every NOM, or, acknowledge that since miracles are present at every valid NOM, the principle that Eucharistic miracles are not possible, lest it infer God's promotion of the NOM, is false.

2) A Eucharistic miracle at the NOM would mean God is promoting the NOM: Sheer nonsense and pure imagination!  It is human sophistry to box God into that position.  As I argued in the Catechetical Refutation, God can intervene to bolster the faith -in his mercy- of those whose faith in transubstantiation is under seige from the very rite which implicitly denies it.  God by intervening in the form of a Eucharistic miracle is combating the Novus Ordo, not promoting it.

3) Maybe the devil did it: A negative doubt is not a reasonable doubt.  Those who advance this theory do so with no evidence behind it.  Their ill disposition is one which prejudices them against the evidence, and to seek for rebuttals without any positive doubt whatsoever (and without any analysis of the evidence).

4) Since the priests are not priests (or the Mass is not valid), it is impossible for there to have been a eucharistic miracle: Let's say for the moment it were true that the priest was invalidly ordained, and consequently, the "Eucharist" was not validly confected.  Would it stand to reason, therefore, that God could not work a miracle in the bread?  No.  God could make a Pepsi can, pumpkin, brick or thin air bleed if it suited His purposes.  Which is all another way of saying, the issue of validity is entirely besides the point.  If God so chose to directly intervene and place his substance into what was bread, there is no theological (or other) argument which impedes us from accepting He could do so.  

In short, this made-up notion that a Eucharistic miracle in a NOM somehow necessarily means that God is promoting that rite is ridiculous.

The good fruits (e.g., increase in faith and fervency in devotion to the Eucharist) stemming from this miracle show that it is not a prodigy of the devil (Does the devil bear good fruit, and bolster faith in transubstantiation??), but very probably a true miracle of God.

We must not let our opposition to the NOM (and I have not attended one in 20 years, nor would I advise anyone to do so except in the most unusual or extreme circumstance) blind us to the possibility that God is God, and He is perfectly able to interject Himself into a NOM consecration as an act of mercy to combat the faithlessness of that rite, and restore the faith of His sheep.

I have no objection to people exercising a prudent reserve in the matter (I myself hold out the possibility it could all be illegitimate, but the evidence points toward the opposite conclusion).
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Pax Vobis on May 18, 2019, 10:23:48 AM
Quote
I myself hold out the possibility it could all be illegitimate, but the evidence points toward the opposite conclusion)
What evidence have you corroborated personally?  Are you a scientist who independently studied the sample?  Were you a lawyer who cross examined the priest, after reviewing all the facts?  Or are you making up your mind based on a magazine article which tells a good story and which presumed the “facts” are true?

The Church always, always, always presumes these stories are fantastic until there is no physical explanation.  Those of us who are skeptics and scoffers are taking the proper stance.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: hollingsworth on May 18, 2019, 11:08:38 AM

Lad:
Quote
If this is in fact an authentic miracle performed by God ... then you have no choice but to accept the fact that God approves of the Novus Ordo Mass.  But I know that God does not approve of it.  Therefore, the miracle must be false, likely diabolical in origin.  See how the CHURCH would reason it out?  You START with Catholic principles and THEN make inferences about the miracle.  You do not start with a miracle and draw principles from IT.


 
Sorry, Lad, your thinking may be way off, as it sometimes inclined to be. You, along with a coterie of ‘true Mass’ trads on CI, can’t bear the idea that a NO consecration might be valid. But this NO miracle obviously took place, and the devil doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with it. The miracle does not automatically show that God approves of it. Quite simply, it might show, that even in the new Mass, God is bound by the words of Consecration. It might, also, testify to the ‘fact’ that that God honors the Eucharistic intentions of Catholic faithful, who have not yet achieved your level of  traditional Catholic enlightenment.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Merry on May 18, 2019, 12:37:37 PM
Quo Primum still says NO to the "N.O." - NO matter what.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: 2Vermont on May 18, 2019, 02:00:06 PM
For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 18, 2019, 04:49:33 PM
For there shall arise false Christs and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders, insomuch as to deceive (if possible) even the elect. (Matthew 24:24)
How true these words are.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 18, 2019, 06:19:11 PM
I have no clue if this miracle is real or not, but even if it is, I don't see how it proves much about the NO besides its basic validity.

1: I don't think the Devil would do this, because, as Sean says, this type of miracle would increase, not decrease, faith in transubstantiation, even if the NO rite itself discourages such faith.

2: I grant that God could do this in the instance of an outright invalid priest (as the Sedevacantists would believe is the case) but it seems unlikely that he would because it would be a form of tricking people, he'd be tricking people into believing the Novus Ordo Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ when it really is not.

3: I do believe, anywhere on the spectrum of trad opinion that says the NO is still valid, anywhere from the softer "the NO has problems and is imprudent" to the stricter positions of "you should never go to the NO, but some people can still receive graces from it" (As Bishop Williamson I believe has said), I can make sense of this being a valid miracle.  As Sean pointed out, this type of miracle could be God's merciful means of confirming to the faithful the miracle of transubstantiation even if the rite is bad and ought never to be attended by those "in the know."

4: I wonder if the crying madonnas could mean something else, and could perhaps not have been faked.  Not that they'd mean EO is the true Church of Christ, of course, but perhaps Our Mother is mourning the schism?  A Catholic friend pointed out to me a couple years ago that EOs seem to have a disproportionate number of crying madonnas.  I could easily imagine such a thing being real, and pointing away from the EO.

Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 18, 2019, 06:25:03 PM
“For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”

2 Timothy 4
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 18, 2019, 07:23:57 PM
“For there shall be a time when they will not endure sound doctrine but, according to their own desires, they will heap to themselves teachers having itching ears: And will indeed turn away their hearing from the truth, but will be turned unto fables.”

2 Timothy 4
How's this relevant?
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 18, 2019, 07:27:42 PM
How's this relevant?
Think about it.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 18, 2019, 08:24:38 PM
There is no way to reconcile the R&R position with a true Eucharistic miracle in a Novus Ordo Mass and still retain traditional Catholic doctrine concerning miracles.  http://newadvent.com/cathen/10338a.htm (http://newadvent.com/cathen/10338a.htm)
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 18, 2019, 09:29:27 PM
Quote
At the 2017 Synodal Mass held at Corpus Christi Anglican Church in Rogers (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers,_Arkansas), Rev. Fr. Jason Rice of the Holy Catholic Church Anglican Rite (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Catholic_Church_(Anglican_Rite)), a Continuing Anglican (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continuing_Anglican)denomination, affirmed a Eucharistic miracle in which "An image of a heavenly host appeared directly over the chalice immediately after the words of consecration (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_of_consecration)."[4] (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle#cite_note-Rice2017-4)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle)

So now are you going to believe that Pope Leo XIII was wrong about Anglican orders?
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 18, 2019, 09:34:26 PM
If Francis can be wrong about faith and morals, why not Pope Leo?
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Maria Regina on May 18, 2019, 10:05:12 PM
I cannot recall all the details, but more than ten or twenty years ago, there was a so-called Marian miracle, where the woman or seer involved was able to get the statue to cry tears of blood.

A priest exorcist heard about this from the bishop of the diocese and volunteered to interview the woman and perform the required exorcism.

The priest had the statue brought into the rectory office, and then asked the woman (seer) to meet him in the rectory. She agreed to do so.

She was asked to kneel down before the statue and the priest stood watching and praying behind her so that she could not see what the priest was doing.

After "praying" devoutly for about thirty minutes, she said that the power she had over the statue had vanished and that she was not able to get the BVM to cry tears of blood upon demand. Unbeknownst to her, the priest had been praying prayers of exorcism to block the devil and/or any black magic.

The exorcism was very effective, and finally the woman confessed that she was using some kind of black magic.

Then there is this incident. Is it related?  We cannot trust miracles, nor can we trust false prophets and those who claim to be Christ.
https://churchpop.com/2018/08/11/virgin-mary-statue-claimed-to-be-miraculously-crying-blood-in-argentina-see-the-video-here/
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: poche on May 18, 2019, 10:55:41 PM
Pffft.  I don't even trust that the article is true and not completely made up.  Ever hear of "fake news"?  You guys believe everything you read on the Internet and base theological conclusions on it?

Let's assume for a moment that there was indeed heart tissue in the host, eh?  What would prevent the devil from obtaining said tissue and putting it in place, hmmm?

Answer:  Nothing.

That's why the Church uses the context to help determine authenticity ... e.g. the orthodoxy and the personal virtue of those involved with it.

And God perhaps allowed the devil to do this to test the faith of people like yourselves regarding your own convictions regarding the Mass.  Hint:  you're failing.  Quo vadis is absolutely correct.  If this is in fact an authentic miracle performed by God ... then you have no choice but to accept the fact that God approves of the Novus Ordo Mass.  But I know that God does not approve of it.  Therefore, the miracle must be false, likely diabolical in origin.  See how the CHURCH would reason it out?  You START with Catholic principles and THEN make inferences about the miracle.  You do not start with a miracle and draw principles from IT.

Would you guys like to buy a bridge in Brooklyn from me?  I'll post a link on the internet and give you a good price.  
You give the devil too much credit.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: poche on May 19, 2019, 12:37:36 AM
Excellent post! I remember when I was in Chicago around 1987 (before my conversion to tradition about 6 years later), I had a Greek Orthodox friend who brought me to an Orthodox church that had a supposed weeping Madonna icon. Even then I was trying to figure out how they faked it. It looked so real! Was it a fake? Was it diabolical? Was it a combination of the two? One thing is for certain, it didn’t come from God, as this supposed “miracle” would have, and I’m sure did in many cases, confirmed those adherents in their false religion.
The Holy Spirit goes where it wills, not where we tell it.  
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Maria Regina on May 19, 2019, 01:28:30 AM
In Plano, Texas, there was a Russian Orthodox monastery run by the ex-Catholic priest, Father Greene who later committed suicide.

He faked a myrrh-bearing icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary to draw boys into his monastery where he would molest them.

Beware of the miraculous.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 19, 2019, 05:18:29 AM
The Holy Spirit goes where it wills, not where we tell it.  
Are you for real?
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Stubborn on May 19, 2019, 10:57:40 AM
I have no clue if this miracle is real or not, but even if it is, I don't see how it proves much about the NO besides its basic validity.

1: I don't think the Devil would do this, because, as Sean says, this type of miracle would increase, not decrease, faith in transubstantiation, even if the NO rite itself discourages such faith.

2: I grant that God could do this in the instance of an outright invalid priest (as the Sedevacantists would believe is the case) but it seems unlikely that he would because it would be a form of tricking people, he'd be tricking people into believing the Novus Ordo Eucharist is the true body and blood of Christ when it really is not.

3: I do believe, anywhere on the spectrum of trad opinion that says the NO is still valid, anywhere from the softer "the NO has problems and is imprudent" to the stricter positions of "you should never go to the NO, but some people can still receive graces from it" (As Bishop Williamson I believe has said), I can make sense of this being a valid miracle.  As Sean pointed out, this type of miracle could be God's merciful means of confirming to the faithful the miracle of transubstantiation even if the rite is bad and ought never to be attended by those "in the know."

4: I wonder if the crying madonnas could mean something else, and could perhaps not have been faked.  Not that they'd mean EO is the true Church of Christ, of course, but perhaps Our Mother is mourning the schism?  A Catholic friend pointed out to me a couple years ago that EOs seem to have a disproportionate number of crying madonnas.  I could easily imagine such a thing being real, and pointing away from the EO.
We honestly have no idea, but assuming the article is a truthful account of everything that happened, then:

1:Only the Church can determine if the miracle is a) a fraud, if not then b) from heaven or from hell. All we lay people can do is guess and give opinions - and of course petition Rome to investigate - which these days is futile by any measure.

2: If the priest was invalid, then the whole thing is a fraud. There is no way around this. But the priest could be valid and the whole thing could still be a fraud.

3: As is true for you, me, and all who've condemned and forever abandoned the NO for what it is, God only gives graces to help people take the road toward salvation - which means any graces via this miracle offered by God would be for the purpose of leading people out of the new faith and into the true faith.

God never offers graces in order to keep people on the road to hell, as such, certainly if any graces whatsoever are derived from this alleged miracle or the NO sacrifice of Cain, those graces are only for the purpose of leading individuals to leave the NO, shake the dust from their feet for good, and lead them into the true faith.

4: See #1.    
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Last Tradhican on May 19, 2019, 11:11:14 AM
I find that men are so emotional in response to the issue of Eucharistic miracles transpiring from within conciliar environs
Going by emotions would to believe a "miracle" in some country far away, reported by who knows what reporter, from a "report" from  who knows who. 
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 19, 2019, 11:49:46 AM
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eucharistic_miracle)

So now are you going to believe that Pope Leo XIII was wrong about Anglican orders?
I recently learned that the Continuing Anglicans (or at least some of them) get their Holy Orders from Old Catholics.  In which case their orders could be valid.  Leo XIII was absolutely right on the Anglican orders he was talking about though.

(I'm not saying this miracle was legit either, BTW.  I have no idea.) 
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 19, 2019, 11:53:56 AM
If Francis can be wrong about faith and morals, why not Pope Leo?
I could be wrong, but as far as I can tell, that encyclical *could* be wrong, technically, but I don't see why it would be, as the reasoning behind it is completely sound, and to affirm the opposite opinion would be to say you can validly ordain a sacerdotal priest while intending to ordain a Calvinist minister.  I used to be a Calvinist, the difference between what a Calvinist Anglican would see as a "priest" and what we see it as is the difference between night and day.  This isn't weaponized ambiguity, this is straight up different conceptions, outright, explicitly, and at times (particularly under Edward VI) Calvinism is where the Anglican Church was at.  
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Clemens Maria on May 20, 2019, 12:11:48 PM
So if some Anglican preacher claims there was a Eucharistic miracle (before the "miracle" is confirmed by the Anglican church, never mind the Catholic church) then we should immediately accept it as a miracle that confirms the validity of the Anglican service?
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Quo vadis Domine on May 20, 2019, 01:26:05 PM
So if some Anglican preacher claims there was a Eucharistic miracle (before the "miracle" is confirmed by the Anglican church, never mind the Catholic church) then we should immediately accept it as a miracle that confirms the validity of the Anglican service?
👍 
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Stanley N on May 20, 2019, 02:14:55 PM
So if some Anglican preacher claims there was a Eucharistic miracle (before the "miracle" is confirmed by the Anglican church, never mind the Catholic church) then we should immediately accept it as a miracle that confirms the validity of the Anglican service?
Check out the image of the "miracle" you're referring to:
http://www.nwaanglican.org/eucharistic-miracle-.html

Looks to me like a reflection of a ceiling light.

Catholics are not required to believe even fully-Church-approved apparitions. I think we can be skeptical of supposed miracles that lack anywhere near that level of investigation and approval.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: hollingsworth on May 20, 2019, 03:19:05 PM

Quote
Catholics are not required to believe even fully-Church-approved apparitions. I think we can be skeptical of supposed miracles that lack anywhere near that level of investigation and approval.

We trads have a right to be in denial
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: ByzCat3000 on May 20, 2019, 04:20:50 PM
So if some Anglican preacher claims there was a Eucharistic miracle (before the "miracle" is confirmed by the Anglican church, never mind the Catholic church) then we should immediately accept it as a miracle that confirms the validity of the Anglican service?
I'm still skeptical, but if it was your run of the mill Church of England priest (ie. holy orders tainted by the line of Edward VI) I'd *definitively* disbelieve it because I don't see *any way* those priests could be valid, just by sheer logic.  

If you're talking about some Anglican priest who got his orders from Old Catholics (I've heard this is the case for Continuing Anglicans, which I believe would be where that alleged Eucharistic miracle took place) I'm still certainly skeptical, but such orders could be valid without contradicting Leo XIII
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: poche on May 21, 2019, 10:58:43 PM
In Plano, Texas, there was a Russian Orthodox monastery run by the ex-Catholic priest, Father Greene who later committed suicide.

He faked a myrrh-bearing icon of the Blessed Virgin Mary to draw boys into his monastery where he would molest them.

Beware of the miraculous.
So also said St John of the Cross
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: poche on May 21, 2019, 11:04:28 PM
So if some Anglican preacher claims there was a Eucharistic miracle (before the "miracle" is confirmed by the Anglican church, never mind the Catholic church) then we should immediately accept it as a miracle that confirms the validity of the Anglican service?
You do not have to believe in any of these 'miracles.' 
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: Cera on June 03, 2019, 03:57:49 PM
Inquiring minds want to know:
http://www.therealpresence.org/eucharst/mir/english_pdf/Sokolka1.pdf

On January 7, 2009, the sample of the Host was taken and examined independently by two professionals in histopathology at the University of Medicine of Białystok. They issued a common declaration which states: ‘The sample sent for evaluation looks like myocar-dial tissue. In our opinion, of all the tissues of living organisms this is the one that resembles it the most.’5. The Commission has noted that the analyzed Host is the same one that has been moved from the sacristy to the tabernacle in the chapel of the rectory.
Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: donkath on June 04, 2019, 02:06:11 AM
The Holy Spirit goes where it wills, not where we tell it.  
All your posts show  no need for applying the gift of the discernment of the spirit.
Extract from passage of Fr. John Hardon S.J
I might begin by observing that the full rendering of this statement is "Discernment of Spirits", implying a plurality and especially implying a distinction between one kind of spirit and another. We know from both the teaching of the Church and by now our own experience that serving God and following Christ is not all just a straight, easy, smooth path. It involves by its very definition, and Christ went out of His way to impress us, the fact that it involves conflict. The conflict, moreover, is not only with or within ourselves or with the world with human beings outside of us; but also and mainly for our purpose a conflict with the evil spirits. We further know on faith that the evil spirit, while he cannot, and God will never permit him to, coerce our wills, he can surely test or tempt the weaknesses we have. He then can exploit our passions. He can most certainly use other human beings, as he often does, to lead us into temptation.  
Full article (https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/culture/catholic-contributions/discernment-of-spirits.html)

Title: Re: Regarding the Alleged Euchristic Miracle at Sokolka
Post by: donkath on June 04, 2019, 02:18:49 AM
1:Only the Church can determine if the miracle is a) a fraud, if not then b) from heaven or from hell. All we lay people can do is guess and give opinions - and of course petition Rome to investigate - which these days is futile by any measure.

This is so true it is set in concrete.   Because in these days where it is futile to petition Rome it tells us emphatically that the Church has already given us all the information/teaching/means necessary to discern the spirits.   We do not need any eucharistic miracles except Transubstantiation.    An unconfirmed miracle remains unconfirmed..cannot be 'open to belief'- ergo - subject closed!

..